Well, I was thinking around this. Yeah, this doubt still bother me some times
But, I found my error. Taking sutras literally is a wrong way to go. I read the sutras and the commentaries and you will find a lot of differences and contradictions. Some Masters will tell you that Pure Land is a far far away planet, others will tell you that is a symbol to Nirvana, other say both. And if you read the sutras, you get a different impression too.
Who is wrong? Nobody.
Also, the cosmology used back then was very different and is not fully compatible with our current vision of the universe.
So, at the end, if we want an harmonic practice and belief (Buddhism and science) we have to draw at the middle and follow our own logic.
In reality, Pure Land sutras only describe us that there is a land far away. But who said that these land is in our same human level of perception? Why it should be a planet? Supposing that it's too egocentric (human-centric lol), if we remember correctly there are other and far better dimensions that ours, like heavens, so why Pure Land has to be in our human realm but in a far apart planet? Makes no sense lol. Also, the infinite life span in Pure Land is not compatible with our current physical dimension or plane, in which all things has a beginning and a death, it's a law. Our physical dimension, everything including planets, stars, galaxies, everything dies. Everything, even the physical universe will collapse some day. So, placing Pure Land in a planet makes no sense (because then, Pure Land will collapse lol). Makes no sense, not for me, and in the sutra is not stated that these Land is in the same plane or dimension as our physical universe.
The only logical explanation is in the middle between metaphor and literacy: is in another plane where there is form, but not this dimension.
The whole cosmos is filled with worlds, galaxies, solar systems and full also of other dimensional worlds: vertical and horizontal.
Mahayana is not a static religion. So new interpretations are always valid